AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Worker, a security officer for Employer since 2012, tripped and fell at work, sustaining a puncture wound and a scrape on his leg, which he did not initially report as he felt no pain at the time. Approximately two weeks later, the injuries worsened, prompting him to seek medical attention, where he was diagnosed with cellulitis and prescribed antibiotics without any work restrictions. Worker continued working until December 10, 2012, when he could no longer work due to increased pain and reported the accident to Employer. The Worker's Compensation Judge (WCJ) found that Worker had an accident at work on November 5, 2012, sought medical care on November 17, 2012, and reported the accident on December 10, 2012, but concluded Worker did not provide timely notice of the accident as required, barring him from recovering benefits under the New Mexico Workers’ Compensation Act.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Appellant: Argued that the fifteen-day notice period for reporting his injury should start on the date he became disabled and unable to work, rather than the date of the accident.
• Employer/Insurer-Appellees: Contended that Worker’s injury was not latent and that his ability or inability to work is not relevant under the latent injury doctrine. They also argued that Worker had, or should have had, sufficient knowledge of the nature of his injury to trigger the notice requirement when he sought medical attention on November 17, 2012.

Legal Issues

• Whether Worker provided timely notice of his injury under the latent injury doctrine, which allows reporting at the time a worker knows, or has reason to know, his injury is disabling.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the WCJ’s determination that Worker did not provide timely notice of his injury, concluding that Worker gave timely notice on December 10, 2012, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reasons

• Per RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge (J. MILES HANISEE, Judge concurring and STEPHEN G. FRENCH, Judge dissenting): The Court found that Worker’s injury was latent, as he was not aware of the compensable nature of his injuries immediately after the accident. The Court concluded that the compensable nature of Worker’s injury was not apparent until December 10, 2012, when he became unable to continue working due to increased pain in his leg. Therefore, Worker provided Employer with timely notice of his accident, the accompanying injury, and the resulting disability on December 10, 2012. The Court applied the latent injury doctrine, which begins the notice period when a worker knows, or, with reasonable diligence, should have known of the compensable injury, and found substantial case law supporting the conclusion that the notice period does not begin until the disability prevents the employee from working. The dissent by STEPHEN G. FRENCH, Judge, argued that the evidence supports the WCJ's finding that Worker knew, or should have known, of the compensable nature of his injury on November 17, 2012, when he sought medical attention, making his December 10, 2012, notice to Employer untimely.